AuthorTopic: WHAT???!!!!! (Read 22245 times)

I don't agree with his thoughts on blacks and jews, but why would he make up his little list of things to post. And if you note, I didn't include ALL the things he listed, just the ones that seemed to be hate crimes, which is what he wanted a list of here.

are you seriously asking that question? "why would he make up his little list of things to post?"

maybe because the rest of his writing clearly demonstrates his complete hatred and disdains for non-whites, and to advance his cause, the author feels the need to list possibly fabricated or exaggerated annecdotes to make it seems as if his claims were based in some sort of reality. that's why.

None of the crimes in the list found by ImVinny on Jerry's Aryan Battle Page were "made up." Every statement made was believed accurate when that list was made and the page posted on my former website. There might have been, occasionally, an error in the details, but otherwise the information is correct as presented.

You don't really have to take my word for it. If you will TRY, you can find the information from sources you (probably) wouldn't doubt. The point is, though, you won't try. Court cases are documented publicly, but you aren't going to bestir yourself into finding the documents when the result would be contrary to what you want it to be.

[David Horowitz] is a legit author as well, since some of you accuse me of not finding good sources. I actually met him, and he does exist and is well-known.

David Horowitz is a Jew. Is that what makes him "legitimate"? Dr. William Pierce is "well known," but because he was a White nationalist, some people deny that his authorship is "legit" or that he is a "good source" of information. The ancient Greeks discovered that the worth of an argument does not depend on the social status of the person who is making it. Be he in good odor or in foul with the mainstream of men, his truths are still truths, and his arguments stand on their merits. And yet there are people today who still attempt to make truth subordinate to political favor, or to some orthodox standard of dogma.

"This is a brief selection of the interracial violent crimes that the Jewish-controlled media doesn't mention....

The pictures are self-explanatory, but I'll explain anyway, in case you're a stupid liberal. ... Interracial crimes of this sort—intensely vicious, disgustingly depraved—occur almost routinely in countries such as Zimbabwe and South Africa, where Blacks have succeeded in gaining control of the political machinery.Accordingly, there is no other reasonable conclusion that crime here will approach the same condition as Blacks gain in social and political empowerment.

... If they'd all had guns, the porch-monkeys would have been dead before they knew what hit them. The lesson is: Whites had better get guns, and they had better get training in using guns effectively. Another lesson: Whites had better understand and accept the fact, however impolite it seems, that Blacks represent the most concentrated part of the violent crime threat to Whites and, therefore, when a White must use a gun in self-defense, that gun will be pointing at a Black much of the time. Get used to it and don't let the "racial" aspect of it bother you—it isn't your fault when someone else acts like a savage."

It's like Clayton Bigsby got his own website. *in southern hick accent* Dont let the liberal media tell you how to think and feel. If you have hate in your heart let it out!

All right, TrojanChispas. Let us put the rhetorical smoke and flashing lights aside and speak of specifics. You accurately quoted from my website, Jerry's Aryan Battle Page. You managed to imply that what I said was objectionable in some way. I'm going to assume that you found the portions that you highlighted to be especially hateful.

I said, "interracial crimes of this sort—intensely vicious, disgustingly depraved—occur almost routinely in countries such as Zimbabwe and South Africa, where Blacks have succeeded in gaining control of the political machinery." Do you doubt that the statement is accurate? You didn't exactly say so. But there is no other obvious reason for why you would have highlighted it.

You hedged, presenting the implication in such a way that you could avoid commitment. There is no place in honest debate for hedging. If you think a statement is false, then say so. (That's what racists do when they refute claims by egalitarians, such as "race is a social construct," etc.) If, on the other hand, you suspect that something is true, then don't do what invites disbelief to it.

Here's what you put in RED. I said: "Accordingly, there is no other reasonable conclusion that crime here will approach the same condition as Blacks gain in social and political empowerment."

TrojanChispas, there is a difference between egalitarians and racists that you might not have noticed. Egalitarians are dogmatic, as a religious fanatic is dogmatic. Racists are empiricists, as is science. When a social experiment, or what effectively amounts to one, on race is done, racists observe the result as valid data, whereas egalitarians make excuses. You can consider Zimbabwe and South Africa as laboratories in which an experiment was done in making a transition of power, from White hands to Black hands. The evolution of Zimbabwe and South Africa are valid experimental data.

We have other data, also, in the form of crime rate statistics, resolved by race, controlled for poverty and for the degree of urbanization. When income levels are matched, Blacks behave more violently and are more crime-prone than Whites. The Blacker a city, or a county, or a state, is, the higher its crime rate is. [Sources: The FBI Uniform Crime Reports, and Statistical Abstract of the United States.]

In other words, the conclusion I reached is a reasonable one, your apparent objections notwithstanding.

I said, "The lesson is: Whites had better get guns, and they had better get training in using guns effectively. Another lesson: Whites had better understand and accept the fact, however impolite it seems, that Blacks represent the most concentrated part of the violent crime threat to Whites and, therefore, when a White must use a gun in self-defense, that gun will be pointing at a Black much of the time."

And whatever is wrong with that? I'm telling White people that they are in danger, and that they must be prepared to defend themselves, lest they suffer something like this:

Blacks are indeed the most concentrated part of the violent crime threat to Whites. Of all the murders (having one perpetrator and one victim) in the United States in 1995, fifty-five percent of them were committed by Blacks. During that year, Blacks were only 12% of the population of the United States. Source, so you can check: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, 1995.

I tried to find info on one of her stories about a white woman being dragged to her death, "Patricia Stansfield" but it just points me to similar "media ignores white plight" websites. Well and a site that says she was caught in the seatbelt and not tied to the bumper.

You made Christopher Coleman's murder of Patricia Stansfield sound like an accident. Here's what you read on that non-WN website:

Quote

Patricia Stansfield was a white woman murdered in Streator, Illinois in 1998 by a black criminal called Christopher Coleman. She was dragged to death after becoming entangled in a seat-belt when Coleman stole her car.

So Coleman murdered Patricia Stansfield, and you find significance in the detail about how she was attached to the car while Coleman dragged her to death.

At present, I am not certain which of the two accounts is the true one. It might be that this detail was incorrectly reported originally as "tied to the rear bumper" and later corrected as "caught in a seat belt." It might be that the original version is true and the later one was invented as an attempt to minimize Coleman's viciousness.

Since the car belonged to Patricia Stansfield, it seems reasonable that the only seatbelt she would have been tangled in was that of the driver's seat. Coleman would have had to use that seat himself as he was stealing the car.

There was another dragging crime in Indendence, Missouri, on 22 February 2000. A Black named Kim Davis (age 34) stole a car belonging to a Mrs. Robel, while her six-year-old son, Jake Robel, was still inside. Davis pushed the boy out of the car as he began to drive away, but he did not halt when the boy became entangled in a seatbelt. Davis drove along the road at speeds topping at about 80 miles per hour, causing the child's death. This crime was somewhat better reported than that of Patricia Stansfield, though the media tried to obscure the fact that Davis is Black. However, this murder never gained the notoriety that the media bestowed on the killing of James Byrd.

If Patricia Stansfield really was tied to a bumper, then someone's idea of changing the tale to "entangled in a seatbelt" might have been borrowed from the later murder of Jake Robel.

I don't agree with his thoughts on blacks and jews, but why would he make up his little list of things to post. And if you note, I didn't include ALL the things he listed, just the ones that seemed to be hate crimes, which is what he wanted a list of here.

but it your web site.

No, Julie, Jerry's Aryan Battle Page wasn't ImVinny's website. It was mine. I wish that I'd seen this discussion when it appeared five years ago.